(Topic ID: 12420)

a little WOZ snack

By islandpinball

12 years ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

  • 106 posts
  • 47 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 12 years ago by StevenP
  • Topic is favorited by 1 Pinsider

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

View topic image gallery

s-bicep-curl.jpg
142.jpg
lovethispost.jpg
woz1.jpg

There are 106 posts in this topic. You are on page 3 of 3.
#101 12 years ago
Quoted from stangbat:

StevenP said:None of that stuff is covered by a patent (or copyright or trademark, for that matter), and no license is needed. Find a manufacturer to make it and you can buy and use as many of these things as you want, free and clear.
Yes, I know most of the patents are probably long expired, if they were patented in the first place. You summed it up better than me with your previous post.

Yeah. There seem to be about 60 'live' WMS patents: PP has 40, Gene has 20. In fact, Stern uses the same trough--I wonder if they have an agreement in place?

#102 12 years ago

I think Stern may be using a ball trough that was designed by Sega, US patent 5,797,600.

The Williams patent, US patent No. 5,358,243 (inventors Brian Eddy, Carl Biagi) was filed on 9/28/1993 so it appears it should expire in Sept. 2013.

#103 12 years ago
Quoted from DCFAN:

I think Stern may be using a ball trough that was designed by Sega, US patent 5,797,600.
The Williams patent, US patent No. 5,358,243 (inventors Brian Eddy, Carl Biagi) was filed on 9/28/1993 so it appears it should expire in Sept. 2013.

Thx for that patent #. The parent (OK, grandparent!) of Sega's patent (5,364,096) was actually filed 3 months before the WMS app was filed, and claimed the ball-stop cam in the trough. The later Sega patent you noted didn't include this cam. In view of that, I'm surprised the WMS application issued. My guess is that if it was an issue, both sides decided to coexist rather than conduct an interference. I still wish the electronic file histories were available for these patents; would be interesting to see what arguments were made during prosecution.

#104 12 years ago
Quoted from StevenP:

DCFAN said:

I think Stern may be using a ball trough that was designed by Sega, US patent 5,797,600.
The Williams patent, US patent No. 5,358,243 (inventors Brian Eddy, Carl Biagi) was filed on 9/28/1993 so it appears it should expire in Sept. 2013.
Thx for that patent #. The parent (OK, grandparent!) of Sega's patent (5,364,096) was actually filed 3 months before the WMS app was filed, and claimed the ball-stop cam in the trough. The later Sega patent you noted didn't include this cam. In view of that, I'm surprised the WMS application issued. My guess is that if it was an issue, both sides decided to coexist rather than conduct an interference. I still wish the electronic file histories were available for these patents; would be interesting to see what arguments were made during prosecution.

A patent can issue with another's patented concepts incorporated if the patent application in question includes a non-obvious addition to the already patented concept. Such a patent does not give the new patent owner exclusive rights to the total invention, but rather gives them the exclusive rights to the non-obvious addition/feature. The two patent holders would then have the ability to negotiate a business sharing agreement if such a need exists for either party.

#106 12 years ago
Quoted from DCFAN:

Claim 6 of Sega's patent claims the member above the playfield to prevent balls from going back up the trough. It looks like William's patent should not have been issued as the claims are written (whether Sega claimed the feature or not) but who am I to say
Maybe the examiner interpreted the William's claims in a means-plus-function manner and there was something patentable to that?
After re-reading the Williams patent, it does not look like it has the portion that stops the ball from rolling back in the trough.

No, it doesn't have that cam portion (which seems like a good feature, but requires an extra coil). But the disclosure doesn't require it, and the latter Sega patent has claims (1-5) without the feature. All these ball trough cases were examined by Raleigh Chiu (the USPTO's pinball specialist, it seems), so I'm sure there were solid reasons for issuing these similar inventions, with appropriate distinctions made. (The latter Sega trough patent specifically cites the WMS trough, so it was considered during examination.)

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
$ 9,800.00
Pinball Machine
Pixels Arcade Games
Pinball Machine
From: $ 5.75
Playfield - Other
Rocket City Pinball
Other
There are 106 posts in this topic. You are on page 3 of 3.

Reply

Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

Donate to Pinside

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!


This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/a-little-woz-snack/page/3 and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.

Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.